Insult (Germany)

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The insult is an offense under German criminal law . It is one of the honor offenses and is standardized in Section 185 of Section 185 of the Special Part of the Criminal Code (StGB) . The penal norm protects personal honor . To this end, it prohibits actions that offend the honor of another, such as degrading statements, gestures or assault.

The insult represents the basic offense of honor. More specific offenses represent the defamation ( § 186 StGB) and the defamation ( § 187 StGB), which refer to the expression or dissemination of degrading factual allegations .

In 2016, the police recorded 234,341 defamatory offenses. This accounts for a share of just under four percent of all reported crimes. The clearance rate of 88.8% was at a high level compared to other reported offenses.

Normalization

Since it was last changed on January 1, 1975, the offense has been as follows:

The offense is punished with imprisonment for up to one year or with a fine and, if the offense is committed by assault, with imprisonment for up to two years or with a fine.

Because of the rule, criminal frame of imprisonment up to two years or fined is in the offense according to § 12 paragraph 2 of the Criminal Code is a misdemeanor .

Section 185 of the Criminal Code primarily protects personal honor . This legal interest is rooted in the general right of personality , which jurisprudence derives from Art. 2 Paragraph 1 and Art. 1 Paragraph 1 of the Basic Law (GG). According to the prevailing dualistic concept of honor, it consists of two components: a person's inner claim to respect and their reputation within society.

History of origin

Up until the 19th century, the protection of honor under criminal law was characterized by a large variety of regulations, since the concept of honor was based on the social position of the honorary bearer. For example, the Prussian General Land Law of 1794 contained more than 150 offenses that made a large number of defamation punishable. This variety of regulations was reduced in the course of the drafting of the Prussian Penal Code , which came into force in 1851, and replaced by a smaller number of norms that were more abstract. The Criminal Code of the North German Confederation was drawn up on the basis of this set of rules, which was further developed into the Imperial Criminal Code after the establishment of the German Empire . The current version of the offense offense is based on its § 185. The content of this standard has so far remained almost unchanged. Only provisions on sentencing were changed. In 1876 the legislature increased the range within which courts could impose fines for libel. In 1969 and 1975 linguistic changes were made to the standard.

According to its wording, § 185 StGB threatens the insult with punishment, without defining it in more detail: Since the term insult is particularly open to judgment, it is not very meaningful. For this reason, concerns have been expressed in jurisprudence as to whether the norm is compatible with the requirement of certainty in Art. 103 (2) of the Basic Law. The Federal Constitutional Court rejected these concerns: the offense of the insult had been made sufficiently concrete in the course of time by the essentially uniform case law, so that it was clear to everyone whether a statement was an insult. Therefore, the court judges the norm as constitutional. However, § 185 StGB is in tension with the fundamental rights of communication protected by Art. 5 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 GG , in particular the freedom of expression protected by Art. 5 Paragraph 1 GG . In order to do justice to these basic rights, the criminal law assessment of statements is largely based on a balance between the personal rights concerned and the basic rights of the person making the statement.

Objective fact

Honor bearer

Victims of an insult can only be dignitaries. This applies to living people. The memory of the deceased, as an expression of the post-mortem right of personality, is not protected by Section 185 of the Criminal Code, but by the separate offense of Section 189 of the Criminal Code.

If the perpetrator addresses a collective, this may be an insult to individual members of the collective. This assumes that the offender's offensive act is suitable for addressing individual people despite the use of a collective term. This is possible if the group of people addressed is of manageable size, since the insult in this case can have negative consequences for all members of the collective. The case law affirmed this, for example, in the case of the allegation that one of seven Bavarian state ministers was involved in a call girl ring. The jurisprudence also rated the German doctors , the members of the GSG 9 , the German Jews and the soldiers of the Bundeswehr serving as sufficiently manageable groups of people . In contrast, she did not consider the police officers or Christians as a whole to be capable of insulting . With such large collectives, nobody can feel individually addressed, so that defamation is out of the question.

In contrast, collectives cannot be insulted as they have no personality, so that they cannot be victims of defamation. The law provides for exceptions to this principle in Section 194 (3) sentences 2 and 3 StGB for administrative institutions and religious societies under public law. The case law also assumes that any collective is capable of being insulted if it fulfills a legally recognized social or economic function and can form a uniform will. The case law recognized, for example, the Bundeswehr, corporations and associations as collectives that could be insulted . In some cases, large interest groups, such as trade unions , are seen as collectives that can be insulted.

insult

An insult is the announcement of disregard or disregard for a person. An announcement can take place in a variety of ways, for example verbally, in writing, visually or gesticulately. An insult by non-compliance is also possible. The prerequisite for this is that the perpetrator has the legal obligation to prevent the announcement. Such an obligation can result, for example, from previous dangerous behavior . For example, someone who writes an offensive text and then does not prevent it from being circulated through the actions of another person is liable to prosecution for insulting.

The announcement requires that the disregard is taken note of by another person. To do this, the person concerned must grasp the dishonorable sense of the statement, otherwise the honor of the person concerned will not be violated. This may be missing, for example, if the perpetrator uses a foreign language that is unknown to the other .

There is no announcement if the utterance is made in close family circles and other trusted relationships. This teleological reduction of Section 185 of the Criminal Code arises from the fundamental right to protection of privacy: based on the general right of personality, case law grants every person a right to a sphere within which they can express their opinions about third parties without having to fear criminal penalties . Some legal scholars also extend this to communication between doctor and patient and between lawyer and client.

Disregard through expressions of opinion

An expression of opinion is offensive if it deprives the victim of respect as an equal legal person by depicting the ethical or social worth of the other person less than he actually is. This is conceivable in many ways, for example by insulting or showing the middle finger . In contrast, mere rudeness or tactlessness are not sufficient . Whether or not an utterance constitutes an insult depends on an interpretation of the terms or forms of expression used. Here, an objective yardstick is applied: the decisive factor is how an average person perceives the statement. In jurisprudence it is still unclear how this standard can be transferred to statements on the Internet. However, the use of fecal terms or swear words is regularly offensive. The case law also regarded the designation as a milked goat, an eyesore and plague bite and a fascist as offensive . She also saw the wearing of the abbreviation ACAB on a piece of clothing and the naming of a police officer as a cop as an act of defamation .

However, whether an act is offensive does not depend solely on its content. The context in which the utterance is made is also of great importance. For example, the designation as a Jew can be offensive if it appears to be a race-ideological degradation. The term bull, on the other hand, does not represent an insult if it is not used to insult. A statement that literally speaks to a collective that is not capable of being insulted may offend an individual if the circumstances indicate that the statement is directed directly against a specific person. This is the case, for example, when it is demonstratively expressed to a representative of the collective in question. For example, it can be an insult to a soldier to claim that soldiers are murderers. The same applies to the abbreviation ACAB. The same applies, for example, when addressing the overall unofficial Jewish people, but only addressing that part of the Jewish people who survived the Holocaust . The statement that “cops are pigs” during a traffic control can also be an insult if it is not directed at the police as a whole, but at the police officers present.

Whether a statement is defamatory is also based on the environment in which it is made. If certain manners, such as a particularly rough tone, are customary in a group, this can affect the distinction between unpunished communication and punishable insult. For example, the offensive quality of an expression that is generally perceived as defamatory can be omitted if it is uttered in a region in which the expression is used in a variety of ways that are not defamatory.

Official statements made by public officials can also constitute an offense. This applies, for example, to the question of a judge in a negotiation vis-à-vis a person involved in the process whether he or she does not want to understand him or is too stupid to understand him.

Before 1973, court rulings regularly regarded sexual attacks as insulting, even if they did not constitute a sexual offense. However, the basis for this was removed with the revision of these offenses by the Fourth Law for the Reform of Criminal Law of 1973, since the application of Section 185 of the Criminal Code would undermine the newly created system of sexual offenses. Since then, sex-related acts have only been an insult if there is an inherent disparaging element in them.

Disregard by allegations of fact

Asserting a fact can also be offensive. In contrast to opinion, facts are deemed to be facts that are accessible to evidence. In particular, uttering an untrue fact, such as an unfounded accusation of a criminal offense, can be offensive. If such a fact is expressed to a third party, the offenses of defamation ( § 186 StGB) and defamation ( § 187 StGB) are relevant, which take precedence over the insult as more specific offenses. Section 185 of the Criminal Code is of independent importance with regard to assertions of fact if the fact is only expressed to the person concerned.

Asserting true facts, on the other hand, is fundamentally unpunished. Exceptionally, however, according to Section 192 of the Criminal Code , this can constitute an insult. The prerequisite for this is that the claim is made in a way that is defamatory. Such a formal insult can for example be committed by asserting a fact in a derogatory tone. This applies, for example, to the publication excess. Here, a fact, such as outstanding debts, is publicly displayed with a denouncing and defamatory effect.

Subjective fact

Pursuant to Section 15 of the Criminal Code, criminal liability for insult requires that the offender act with conditional intent . The perpetrator must therefore at least recognize that he is offending someone else and approve of the associated degradation as a result of his actions. If the perpetrator offends another by making a false statement of fact, his intent must also extend to the falsehood of the statement of fact.

If the perpetrator offends someone other than the intended target person, for example during a telephone call, this error is an error in persona , which in principle does not affect the intent of the perpetrator.

justification

consent

According to the prevailing opinion, consent can be given to an insult either expressly or through conclusive action . If, for example, one takes on an unobjective level in a discussion and insults others, a court can, under certain circumstances, interpret this as implied consent that in the further discussion the contributions are not placed on the politeness gold scale, so that corresponding statements are not punishable . For example, a guest on a talk show tried to prevent it from being broadcast by asserting in court that he had been insulted by other talk guests during the broadcast, and that by broadcasting the program, the broadcaster made itself a criminal offense for insulting. However, the court allowed the broadcast on the grounds that the plaintiff had provoked on the show at a low level. He was also known because of a previous talk show visit, which he got involved in by visiting a talk show. This should be assessed as consent through coherent behavior, and therefore the statements in question are not punishable.

Protection of legitimate interests, § 193 StGB

An insult can be justified according to § 185 StGB in accordance with § 193 StGB by the fact that it serves to protect legitimate interests. As such, the law cites exemplary criticizing judgments about scientific, artistic or commercial achievements as well as accusations and reprimands by superiors. When assessing whether there is a legitimate interest, it is important to guarantee the fundamental rights of communication through Article 5 of the Basic Law, in particular freedom of expression and artistic freedom .

When expressing opinions on issues relevant to the public, case law presumes that free speech is permissible. This assumption extends as far as there is no vicious criticism . Such is the case if the person making the statement does not want to make an opinion-forming contribution, but only aims to disparage someone else. In order to do justice to the important function of freedom of expression in a democratic society, the Federal Constitutional Court places high demands on the acceptance of abusive criticism: This is the case if the statement is exclusively to be assessed as a willful defamation from every point of view. The qualification of a defamatory statement as an abusive criticism and the justified renouncement of weighing up freedom of expression and honor regularly require consideration of the occasion and context of the utterance. Historical comparisons with National Socialist practice do not in themselves justify the assumption that there was vilification. The restrictive handling of abusive criticism by the jurisprudence is criticized by some voices in jurisprudence for often giving too little weight to the protection of honor.

In one case, the jurisprudence was based on a vicious criticism, in which a literary critic had written that the author was free of mind , stupid, ignorant and lacking in talent. In contrast, she saw no disparaging criticism in the comparison of a judge with Roland Freisler . The deciding court saw this essentially as a criticism of judicial action in the context of pending legal proceedings . Therefore, the statement was not only used for personal degradation, but was sufficiently related to the factual. Furthermore, the case law did not assess the designation of a police officer who carried out a traffic control as a highwayman as a defamatory criticism .

qualification

Section 185 of the Criminal Code contains an aggravating qualification : Anyone who offends by means of assault is punished with a prison sentence of up to two years or a fine. Assault is an act through which the perpetrator acts directly on the victim's body. This has an insulting effect if the action has a disparaging sense. This comes into consideration, for example, in the case of slaps, shoving, immoral touching or spitting.

Litigation and sentencing

Pursuant to Section 194, Paragraph 1, Clause 1 of the Criminal Code, the offender must file a criminal complaint to prosecute an insult . If the insult was committed against a public official, a person particularly responsible for the public service or a soldier of the Bundeswehr during the performance of his service or in relation to his service, the superior may also file the criminal complaint pursuant to Section 194 (3) sentence 1 of the Criminal Code. According to Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (StPO), the insult is a private criminal offense , so that the injured party can also be charged without the involvement of the public prosecutor.

If the perpetrator and victim insult each other, the court can declare both to be exempt from punishment in accordance with Section 199 of the Criminal Code for lack of punishment. If the offender commits the insult publicly or by disseminating writings, the injured party can apply in accordance with Section 200 (1) StGB for the court to publicly announce the conviction. On the one hand, this is intended to restore the victim's injured reputation. On the other hand, it should represent an additional punishment for the perpetrator.

Since the insult is an offense, the criminal liability of the attempt does not already follow from Section 23 (1) StGB, but requires an explicit order. This is lacking so that attempting to insult is not punishable.

Law competitions

If the insult meets other offenses, it is in legal competition with these offenses . If the insult takes the form of an untrue factual assertion, it is suppressed by the special facts of defamation ( § 186 StGB) and defamation ( § 187 StGB). The same applies to the disparagement of state symbols ( Section 90a of the Criminal Code) and the Federal President ( Section 90 of the Criminal Code). The offense of insulting organs and representatives of foreign countries ( Section 103 StGB) also takes precedence over Section 185 StGB. If the perpetrator insults the victim several times within a short period of time, there is a unit of action . Physical insults can in fact constitute physical harm (Section 223 of the Criminal Code).

Insults in publications can be regulated by the state press laws. As a rule, a very short limitation period applies here.

criminology

Cases of libel offenses recorded in 1987-2016.

The Federal Criminal Police Office annually publishes statistics on all criminal offenses reported in Germany, the police crime statistics . The entire federal territory has been covered since 1993. The statistics from 1991 and 1992 included the old federal states and all of Berlin. Earlier statistics only cover the old federal states.

The insult is recorded in the statistics together with the defamation, defamation and denigration of the memory of the deceased. The honor offenses have a total share of just under 4% of all reported crimes. This makes them the seventh most common crime group in crime statistics.

Police crime statistics for libel crimes in the Federal Republic of Germany
Cases recorded
year All in all Per 100,000 inhabitants Clearance rate
1987 72.177 118.1 87.8%
1988 78.227 127.7 87.6%
1989 81,027 131.3 87.9%
1990 79,552 126.9 87.7%
1991 79,698 122.6 87.1%
1992 83,737 127.3 87.3%
1993 99,885 123.4 86.6%
1994 103.771 127.6 87.4%
1995 115.240 141.3 87.8%
1996 117,629 143.8 89.1%
1997 126,585 154.3 89.2%
1998 130.051 158.5 89.6%
1999 136.285 166.1 90.0%
2000 152.282 185.3 89.6%
2001 161.941 196.9 89.3%
2002 162,884 197.6 90.3%
2003 164,848 199.7 90.4%
2004 174,455 211.4 90.7%
2005 179,721 217.8 90.4%
2006 187,527 227.5 90.5%
2007 193.092 234.6 90.1%
2008 193,617 235.5 89.9%
2009 200,827 244.9 89.9%
2010 208.183 254.5 89.9%
2011 210.797 257.9 90.0%
2012 216,370 264.4 90.2%
2013 222,892 276.8 90.4%
2014 225,098 278.7 90.6%
2015 218.414 269.0 90.1%
2016 234,341 285.2 88.8%

Related facts

Insulting organs and representatives of foreign states, Section 103 StGB

Insulting foreign heads of state or diplomatic representatives was a separate criminal offense in Section 103 of the Criminal Code until December 31, 2017 . The norm expressed the principles of inviolability of the heads of state, members of government and diplomats of foreign states , which were already valid by virtue of unwritten international law.

(1) Anyone who insults a foreign head of state or who, in relation to their position, is a member of a foreign government who is in an official capacity in Germany, or a head of a foreign diplomatic mission certified in the federal territory, is subject to imprisonment of up to three years or with Fine, in the case of defamatory insult, punishable by imprisonment from three months to five years.
(2) If the act is committed publicly, in a meeting or by disseminating documents (Section 11 (3)), Section 200 shall apply. The public prosecutor can also apply for the conviction to be announced.

Section 103 of the Criminal Code, along with assaults against organs and representatives of foreign states ( Section 102 of the Criminal Code) and the violation of flags and emblems of foreign states ( Section 104 of the Criminal Code), was systematically located in the section on criminal offenses against foreign states. The offense in Section 103 of the Criminal Code, however, corresponded to that of the insult in accordance with Section 185 of the Criminal Code. Section 103 of the Criminal Code was linked to the insult of specific persons, such as a certain head of state, another foreign member of the government who is on a state visit in Germany, or an ambassador certified in Germany.

Requirement of law was in accordance with § 104a of the Criminal Code, the Federal Republic of Germany maintained diplomatic relations with the State concerned, the legislation met on reciprocity, the foreign government in the federal government a request for prosecution expressed and to the competent prosecutor's office, the authorization granted to the prosecution.

In this context, an unsuccessful legislative initiative from 1958 that sought to criminalize the spread of claims about the private lives of foreign heads of state is of legal historical significance ( Lex Soraya ).

The offense, which since 1871 only applies to foreign monarchs in the German Empire , gained importance as early as 1949, when Der Spiegel was banned by the British occupying forces for two weeks because it reportedly reported "in a generally insulting tone" about the change of throne in the Netherlands . Due to the allied sovereignty, however, the German political criminal law was repealed at that time, so that it was not until 1953 that the regulation on insulting foreign heads of state became applicable federal German law again. The first German Federal Government introduced during her tenure hundreds of criminal complaints because of "political offense".

The text of the law also became known as the Shah paragraph after the Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi frequently invoked it. In 1964 he felt insulted by a caricaturing photo montage in the Kölner Stadt-Anzeiger , whereupon the responsible employees had to pay a fine. 1977 by the Higher Administrative Court for North Rhine-Westphalia , a the time of the Pinochet dictatorship in the front of the Chilean Embassy in Bonn shown banner reading murderers declared illegal. The paragraph gained topicality in March 2016 through a satire about the Turkish President Erdoğan .

Section 103 was abolished on January 1, 2018, and insulting organs and representatives of foreign countries is now only subject to the general provisions on insults (see above).

Disparagement of the Federal President, § 90 StGB

The denigration of the Federal President is regulated as a special form of insult in Section 90 of the Criminal Code. According to this, anyone who publicly denigrates the Federal President is punished with imprisonment from three months to five years. A denigration is a particularly serious defamation.

Legal situation in other states

literature

  • Thomas Fischer: Criminal Code with subsidiary laws . 65th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2018, ISBN 978-3-406-69609-1 , § 185 .
  • Ralf-Peter Fuchs: For the honor. Westphalian libel trials before the Reich Chamber of Commerce 1525–1805 (= research on regional history. Volume 28). Schöningh, Paderborn 1999, ISBN 3-506-79600-3 (also: Bochum, University, dissertation, 1996).
  • Eric Hilgendorf: § 185 . In: Heinrich Laufhütte (Ed.): Leipzig Commentary on the Criminal Code . 12th edition. tape 6: §§ 146-210 . De Gruyter, Berlin 2010, ISBN 978-3-89949-764-9 .
  • Kristian Kühl: § 185 . In: Kristian Kühl, Martin Heger: Criminal Code: Comment . 29th, revised edition. CH Beck, Munich 2018, ISBN 978-3-406-70029-3 .
  • Theodor Lenckner, Jörg Eisele: § 185 . In: Adolf Schönke, Horst Schröder, Albin Eser (eds.): Criminal Code: Commentary . 29th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2014, ISBN 978-3-406-65226-4 .
  • Jürgen Regge, Christian Ebene: § 185 . In: Günther Sander (Ed.): Munich Commentary on the Criminal Code . 2nd Edition. tape 4 : §§ 185–262 StGB. CH Beck, Munich 2012, ISBN 978-3-406-60290-0 .
  • Jürg Roth: The criminal law protection of the honor of majorities (= European university publications. Series 2: Law. Volume 95). Lang, Bern 1974, ISBN 3-261-01374-5 .
  • Rainer Zaczyk: § 185 . In: Urs Kindhäuser, Ulfrid Neumann, Hans-Ullrich Paeffgen (eds.): Criminal Code . 5th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2017, ISBN 978-3-8487-3106-0 .

Web links

Wikiquote: Insult  - Quotes
Wiktionary: insult  - explanations of meanings, word origins, synonyms, translations

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ Urs Kindhäuser: Criminal Law Special Part I: Offenses against personal rights, the state and society . 6th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2014, ISBN 978-3-8487-0290-9 , § 22, marginal no. 1.
  2. ↑ Kristian Kühl: § 185 , Rn. 1. In: Kristian Kühl, Martin Heger: Criminal Code: Comment . 29th, revised edition. CH Beck, Munich 2018, ISBN 978-3-406-70029-3 .
  3. ↑ a b Theodor Lenckner, Jörg Eisele: § 185 , Rn. 1. In: Adolf Schönke, Horst Schröder, Albin Eser (Ed.): Criminal Code: Commentary . 29th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2014, ISBN 978-3-406-65226-4 .
  4. ↑ BVerfGE 54, 148 .
  5. ^ Rudolf Rengier: Criminal Law Special Part II: Offenses against the person and the general public . 17th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2016, ISBN 978-3-406-68815-7 , § 28, Rn. 2.
  6. ↑ Arndt Sinn: § 185 , Rn. 3. In: Helmut Satzger, Wilhelm Schluckebier, Gunter Widmaier (eds.): Criminal Code: Commentary . 3. Edition. Carl Heymanns Verlag, Cologne 2016, ISBN 978-3-452-28685-7 .
  7. ↑ Jürgen Regge, Christian level: § 185 , marginal no. 2-6. In: Günther Sander (Ed.): Munich Commentary on the Criminal Code . 2nd Edition. tape 4 : §§ 185–262 StGB. CH Beck, Munich 2012, ISBN 978-3-406-60290-0 .
  8. ↑ Hendrik Schneider: § 185 , Rn. 5. In: Dieter Dölling, Gunnar Duttge, Dieter Rössner, Stefan König (eds.): Entire criminal law: StGB - StPO - subsidiary laws . 4th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2017, ISBN 978-3-8487-2955-5 .
  9. ↑ Arndt Sinn: § 185 , Rn. 1. In: Helmut Satzger, Wilhelm Schluckebier, Gunter Widmaier (eds.): Criminal Code: Commentary . 3. Edition. Carl Heymanns Verlag, Cologne 2016, ISBN 978-3-452-28685-7 .
  10. ↑ BVerfGE 93, 266 (291–292): Soldiers are murderers .
  11. ↑ BVerfGE 93, 266 (292–293).
  12. ↑ Kerstin von der Betten: Art. 5 , marginal no. 9. In: Bruno Schmidt-Bleibtreu, Hans Hofmann, Hans-Günter Henneke (eds.): Commentary on the Basic Law: GG . 13th edition. Carl Heymanns, Cologne 2014, ISBN 978-3-452-28045-9 .
  13. ↑ Jürgen Regge, Christian level: § 185 , marginal no. 39. In: Günther Sander (Ed.): Munich Commentary on the Criminal Code . 2nd Edition. tape 4 : §§ 185–262 StGB. CH Beck, Munich 2012, ISBN 978-3-406-60290-0 .
  14. ↑ BGHSt 7, 129 (132).
  15. ↑ Thomas Fischer: Penal Code with ancillary laws . 65th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2018, ISBN 978-3-406-69609-1 , before § 185 , marginal no. 8th.
  16. ↑ Jürgen Regge, Christian level: § 185 , marginal no. 40. In: Günther Sander (Ed.): Munich Commentary on the Criminal Code . 2nd Edition. tape 4 : §§ 185–262 StGB. CH Beck, Munich 2012, ISBN 978-3-406-60290-0 .
  17. ↑ Hendrik Schneider: § 189 , Rn. 2-4. In: Dieter Dölling, Kai Ambos, Gunnar Duttge, Dieter Rössner (eds.): Entire criminal law: StGB - StPO - ancillary laws . 3. Edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2013, ISBN 978-3-8329-7129-8 .
  18. ↑ Klaus Geppert: On the passive ability to insult groups of people and of individuals under a collective name . In: Jura 2005, p. 244.
  19. ↑ BGHSt 2, 38 (39).
  20. ↑ Thomas Fischer: Penal Code with ancillary laws . 65th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2018, ISBN 978-3-406-69609-1 , before § 185 , marginal no. 9.
  21. ↑ BGHSt 19, 235 .
  22. ^ Reichsgericht : Juristische Wochenschrift 1932, p. 3113.
  23. ↑ OLG Hamm, judgment of September 24, 1980, 4 Ss 1410/80 = monthly for German law 1981, p. 336.
  24. ↑ a b BGHSt 11, 207 (208).
  25. ↑ BGHSt 36, 83 (87).
  26. ↑ BayObLG, judgment of December 22, 1989, 1 St 193/89 = JuristenZeitung 1990, p. 348.
  27. ^ LG Cologne, judgment of April 29, 1982, 105 Qs 117/82 = monthly for German law 1982, p. 771.
  28. ↑ BGHSt 2, 38 (39).
  29. ↑ Rainer Zaczyk: § 185 , Rn. 12. In: Urs Kindhäuser, Ulfrid Neumann, Hans-Ullrich Paeffgen (Ed.): Criminal Code . 5th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2017, ISBN 978-3-8487-3106-0 .
  30. ↑ BGHSt 6, 186 .
  31. ↑ BGHSt 36, 83 .
  32. ↑ BGHSt 36, 83 (88).
  33. ↑ BGHSt 6, 186 (191).
  34. ↑ Thomas Fischer: Penal Code with ancillary laws . 65th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2018, ISBN 978-3-406-69609-1 , before § 185 , marginal no. 9-12.
  35. ↑ Eric Hilgendorf: § 185, Rn. 3. In: Heinrich Laufhütte (Ed.): Leipzig Commentary on the Criminal Code . 12th edition. tape 6: §§ 146-210 . De Gruyter, Berlin 2010, ISBN 978-3-89949-764-9 .
  36. ↑ Arndt Sinn: § 185 , Rn. 9. In: Helmut Satzger, Wilhelm Schluckebier, Gunter Widmaier (eds.): Criminal Code: Commentary . 3. Edition. Carl Heymanns Verlag, Cologne 2016, ISBN 978-3-452-28685-7 .
  37. ↑ BGHSt 1, 288 (289).
  38. ↑ Rainer Zaczyk: § 185 , Rn. 2. In: Urs Kindhäuser, Ulfrid Neumann, Hans-Ullrich Paeffgen (eds.): Criminal Code . 5th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2017, ISBN 978-3-8487-3106-0 .
  39. ^ BGH, judgment of February 1, 1977, VI ZR 204/74 = Commercial legal protection and copyright 1977, p. 801.
  40. ↑ BGH, judgment of November 3, 1983, 1 StR 515/83 = New Journal for Criminal Law 1984, p. 216.
  41. ^ AG Hamburg, judgment of November 9, 1988, 201 Cs 1100 Js 430/88 = Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 1989, p. 410.
  42. ↑ OLG Düsseldorf, judgment of March 2, 1960, (2) Ss 934/59 (1047) = Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 1960, p. 1072.
  43. ↑ Urs Kindhäuser: Criminal Law Special Part I: Offenses against personal rights, the state and society . 6th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2014, ISBN 978-3-8487-0290-9 , § 25, marginal no. 3.
  44. ^ A b Thomas Fischer: Criminal Code with subsidiary laws . 65th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2018, ISBN 978-3-406-69609-1 , § 185 , Rn. 5.
  45. ↑ BGHSt 9, 17 (19).
  46. ↑ BVerfGE 90, 255 (260-261).
  47. ↑ Kristian Kühl: § 185 , Rn. 9. In: Kristian Kühl, Martin Heger: Criminal Code: Comment . 29th, revised edition. CH Beck, Munich 2018, ISBN 978-3-406-70029-3 .
  48. ^ Rainer Zaczyk: Before § 185 , Rn. 40. In: Urs Kindhäuser, Ulfrid Neumann, Hans-Ullrich Paeffgen (Ed.): Criminal Code . 5th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2017, ISBN 978-3-8487-3106-0 .
  49. ↑ Urs Kindhäuser: Criminal Law Special Part I: Offenses against personal rights, the state and society . 6th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2014, ISBN 978-3-8487-0290-9 , § 25, marginal no. 4th
  50. ↑ Urs Kindhäuser: Criminal Law Special Part I: Offenses against personal rights, the state and society . 6th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2014, ISBN 978-3-8487-0290-9 , § 22, marginal no. 12.
  51. ↑ Thomas Fischer: Penal Code with ancillary laws . 65th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2018, ISBN 978-3-406-69609-1 , § 185 , Rn. 10.
  52. ↑ BVerfGE 93, 266 (295): Soldiers are murderers.
  53. ^ Rainer Zaczyk: Comments on BayObLG, judgment of February 15, 2002, Az. 1 St RR 173/01 . In: Juristische Rundschau 2003, p. 37.
  54. ↑ Eric Hilgendorf: Flaming of honor ("flaming") in Web 2.0. An outline of the problem de lege lata and de lege ferenda . In: Journal for international criminal law dogmatics 2010, p. 208 (211).
  55. ↑ a b Rainer Zaczyk: § 185 , Rn. 9. In: Urs Kindhäuser, Ulfrid Neumann, Hans-Ullrich Paeffgen (eds.): Criminal Code . 5th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2017, ISBN 978-3-8487-3106-0 .
  56. ↑ BGHZ 39, 124 .
  57. ↑ OLG Hamm, judgment of December 9, 1981, 7 Ss 1584/81 = Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 1982, p. 659.
  58. ↑ OLG Karlsruhe, judgment of July 19, 2012, 1 Ss 64/12.
  59. ↑ BayObLG, judgment of February 18, 1988, 5 St 4/88 = Neue Zeitschrift für Strafrecht 1988, p. 365.
  60. ↑ Thomas Fischer: Penal Code with ancillary laws . 65th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2018, ISBN 978-3-406-69609-1 , § 185 , Rn. 8th.
  61. ↑ Arndt Sinn: § 185 , Rn. 10. In: Helmut Satzger, Wilhelm Schluckebier, Gunter Widmaier (eds.): Criminal Code: Commentary . 3. Edition. Carl Heymanns Verlag, Cologne 2016, ISBN 978-3-452-28685-7 .
  62. ↑ BGHSt 8, 325 .
  63. ^ LG Regensburg, judgment of October 6, 2005, 3 Ns 134 Js 97458/04 = Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 2006, p. 629.
  64. ↑ OLG Frankfurt, judgment of March 11, 1991, 1 Ss 31/90 = Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 1991, p. 2032.
  65. ↑ Mark Zöller: Note on OLG Karlsruhe, ruling. July 19, 2012 - 1 (8) Ss 64/12 - AK 40/12. In: Journal for Legal Studies 2013, p. 102 (105).
  66. ↑ Eric Hilgendorf, Brian Valerius: Computer and Internet criminal law: A floor plan . 2nd Edition. Springer Science + Business Media, Berlin 2012, ISBN 978-3-642-16885-7 , Rn. 354
  67. ^ AG Ehingen, decision of June 24, 2009, 2 Cs 36 Js 7167/09 = New Journal for Criminal Law Jurisprudence Report 2010, p. 143.
  68. ^ BGH, judgment of February 22, 2006, RiZ (R) 3/05 = Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 2006, p. 1674.
  69. ^ BGH, judgment of 14 May 1986, 3 StR 504/85 = Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 1986, p. 2442.
  70. ↑ Kristian Kühl: § 185 , Rn. 6. In: Kristian Kühl, Martin Heger: Criminal Code: Comment . 29th, revised edition. CH Beck, Munich 2018, ISBN 978-3-406-70029-3 .
  71. ↑ Thomas Hillenkamp: Comment on BGH, judgment of March 15, 1989, 2 StR 662/88. In: New Journal for Criminal Law 1989, p. 529.
  72. ↑ Dirk Eppner, Antje Hahn: General questions about offenses against insults . In: Legal worksheets 2006, p. 702.
  73. ↑ Arndt Sinn: § 185 , Rn. 14. In: Helmut Satzger, Wilhelm Schluckebier, Gunter Widmaier (eds.): Criminal Code: Commentary . 3. Edition. Carl Heymanns Verlag, Cologne 2016, ISBN 978-3-452-28685-7 .
  74. ↑ Kristian Kühl: § 185 , Rn. 2. In: Kristian Kühl, Martin Heger: Criminal Code: Comment . 29th, revised edition. CH Beck, Munich 2018, ISBN 978-3-406-70029-3 .
  75. ↑ Rainer Zaczyk: § 185 , Rn. 11. In: Urs Kindhäuser, Ulfrid Neumann, Hans-Ullrich Paeffgen (ed.): Criminal Code . 5th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2017, ISBN 978-3-8487-3106-0 .
  76. ↑ Urs Kindhäuser: Criminal Law Special Part I: Offenses against personal rights, the state and society . 6th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2014, ISBN 978-3-8487-0290-9 , § 25, marginal no. 14th
  77. ↑ Rainer Zaczyk: § 192 , Rn. 4. In: Urs Kindhäuser, Ulfrid Neumann, Hans-Ullrich Paeffgen (eds.): Criminal Code . 5th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2017, ISBN 978-3-8487-3106-0 .
  78. ↑ Rainer Zaczyk: § 185 , Rn. 15. In: Urs Kindhäuser, Ulfrid Neumann, Hans-Ullrich Paeffgen (eds.): Criminal Code . 5th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2017, ISBN 978-3-8487-3106-0 .
  79. ↑ BGHSt 7, 129 (134).
  80. ↑ Eric Hilgendorf: § 185 , Rn. 37. In: Bernd von Heintschel-Heinegg (Ed.): Beckscher Online Commentary StGB , 30th Edition 2016
  81. ^ LG Nürnberg-Fürth, judgment of October 6, 2000, 16 S 2865/00.
  82. ↑ Jürgen Regge, Christian level: § 193 , marginal no. 38. In: Günther Sander (Ed.): Munich Commentary on the Criminal Code . 2nd Edition. tape 4 : §§ 185–262 StGB. CH Beck, Munich 2012, ISBN 978-3-406-60290-0 .
  83. ↑ Thomas Fischer: Penal Code with ancillary laws . 65th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2018, ISBN 978-3-406-69609-1 , § 193, Rn. 17a.
  84. ↑ Zeit Online , abuse criticism limited to rare exceptional cases
  85. ↑ Thomas Fischer: Penal Code with ancillary laws . 65th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2018, ISBN 978-3-406-69609-1 , § 193, Rn. 18th
  86. ↑ Kyrill Schwarz: Freedom of expression and protection of personality . In: Juristische Arbeitsblätter 2017, p. 241 (244).
  87. ↑ BVerfG, judgment of August 2, 2016, 1 BvR 2646/15 = Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 2016, p. 24.
  88. ↑ BVerfG, decision of June 14, 2019, Az. 1 BvR 2433/17, [1]
  89. ↑ Kristian Kühl: § 185 , Rn. 12a. In: Kristian Kühl, Martin Heger: Criminal Code: Comment . 29th, revised edition. CH Beck, Munich 2018, ISBN 978-3-406-70029-3 .
  90. ↑ Harro Otto: The criminal protection against defamatory expressions of opinion . In: Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 2006, p. 575.
  91. ↑ BVerfG, judgment of February 25, 1993, 1 BvR 151/93 = Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 1993, p. 1462.
  92. ↑ Constantin Baron van Lijnden , acquittal before the Higher Regional Court Munich: lawyer was allowed to call the Senate worse than Roland Freisler
  93. ↑ Thomas Fischer: Penal Code with ancillary laws . 65th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2018, ISBN 978-3-406-69609-1 , § 193 , Rn. 28a.
  94. ↑ Carsten Krumm : In Munich for Richter to accept: "Actually you are like Freisler - only different!" In: Beck blog. CH Beck, June 30, 2017, accessed December 7, 2017 .
  95. ↑ BayObLG, decision of October 20, 2004, 1 St RR 153/04. In: Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 2005, p. 1291 (1292).
  96. ↑ Thomas Fischer: Penal Code with ancillary laws . 65th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2018, ISBN 978-3-406-69609-1 , § 185 , Rn. 18th
  97. ↑ Rainer Zaczyk: § 185 , Rn. 20. In: Urs Kindhäuser, Ulfrid Neumann, Hans-Ullrich Paeffgen (ed.): Criminal Code . 5th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2017, ISBN 978-3-8487-3106-0 .
  98. ↑ Dirk Eppner, Antje Hahn: General questions about offenses against insults . In: Legal worksheets 2006, p. 702.
  99. ↑ Hendrik Schneider: § 199 , Rn. 1. In: Dieter Dölling, Kai Ambos, Gunnar Duttge, Dieter Rössner (eds.): Entire criminal law: StGB - StPO - ancillary laws . 3. Edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2013, ISBN 978-3-8329-7129-8 .
  100. ↑ DIrk Eppner, Antje Hahn: General questions about offenses against insults . In: Legal worksheets 2006, p. 706.
  101. ↑ Rainer Zaczyk: § 200 , Rn. 1. In: Urs Kindhäuser, Ulfrid Neumann, Hans-Ullrich Paeffgen (Ed.): Criminal Code . 5th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2017, ISBN 978-3-8487-3106-0 .
  102. ↑ Jürgen Regge, Christian level: § 185 , marginal no. 41. In: Günther Sander (Ed.): Munich Commentary on the Criminal Code . 2nd Edition. tape 4 : §§ 185–262 StGB. CH Beck, Munich 2012, ISBN 978-3-406-60290-0 .
  103. ↑ Thomas Fischer: Penal Code with ancillary laws . 65th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2018, ISBN 978-3-406-69609-1 , § 185 , Rn. 20th
  104. ↑ a b Hendrik Schneider: § 185 , Rn. 27. In: Dieter Dölling, Kai Ambos, Gunnar Duttge, Dieter Rössner (eds.): Entire criminal law: StGB - StPO - ancillary laws . 3. Edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2013, ISBN 978-3-8329-7129-8 .
  105. ↑ Rainer Zaczyk: § 185 , Rn. 21. In: Urs Kindhäuser, Ulfrid Neumann, Hans-Ullrich Paeffgen (ed.): Criminal Code . 5th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2017, ISBN 978-3-8487-3106-0 .
  106. ↑ a b PKS time series 1987 to 2016. (No longer available online.) Federal Criminal Police Office, 23 May 2016, formerly in the original ; accessed on October 6, 2017 .  ( Page no longer available , search in web archives )  Info: The link was automatically marked as defective. Please check the link according to the instructions and then remove this notice.@1@ 2Template: Dead Link / www.bka.de  
  107. ↑ Police crime statistics. Federal Criminal Police Office, accessed on September 17, 2017 .
  108. ↑ Johannes Wessels, Michael Hettinger: Criminal Law Special Part 1: Offenses against personal and community values . 39th edition. CF Müller, Heidelberg 2015, ISBN 978-3-8114-4035-7 , Rn. 466.
  109. ↑ BGBl. 2017 I p. 2439
  110. ↑ Bayerischer VGH, judgment of March 8, 2010, 10 B 09.1102 = Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 2011, p. 793.
  111. ^ Norman Griebel: "Insulting a Foreign Head of State". Complaint against Beckstein and Friedman June 22, 2006
  112. ↑ Erdoğan poem: Böhmermann could have made himself a criminal offense . Zeit Online , April 6, 2016
  113. ↑ Comedian cancels "Anne Will". Turkey demands prosecution from Böhmermann . dpa , t-online.de, April 10, 2016
  114. ↑ Heribert Prantl : Will the Shah paragraph now become the Böhmermann paragraph? Süddeutsche Zeitung , April 8, 2016.
  115. ↑ Felix Bohr, Klaus Wiegrefe : "Big Gangster" . In: Der Spiegel . No. 23 , 2016, p. 44 f . ( online ).
  116. ↑ Claus Kreß: Before §§ 102ff , Rn. 22. In: Klaus Miebach (Ed.): Munich Commentary on the Criminal Code . 3. Edition. tape 3 : §§ 80-184j. CH Beck, Munich 2017, ISBN 978-3-406-68553-8 .
  117. ↑ Jan Steinmetz: § 90 , Rn. 5. In: Klaus Miebach (Ed.): Munich Commentary on the Criminal Code . 3. Edition. tape 3 : §§ 80-184j. CH Beck, Munich 2017, ISBN 978-3-406-68553-8 .